C
c659smith
Guest
I Do but you forgot
Peter and Christ
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Peter and Christ
M
majick275
Guest
even LDS scriptures change over the years and in meaningful ways. modern “prophets” distance from the teachings of the earlier ones. so which of the words of “gods prophets” are really “god’s words”?I’m only aware of 2 splinter groups that are of any real size. RLDS (now the community of Christ) and the FLDS. the RLDS history I’m not all that up to date on, but the FLDS more or less decided to not listen to Wilford Woodruff.
Many church practices have changed over the years. Aside from the starting years when things where reveled a piece at a time I’ve never seen a doctrine change.
I follow what God’s prophets taught beacuse it is Gods word. I’m really not too big on many LDS traditions.
T
teancum79
Guest
I’ve not seen any “distancing” from past official teachings. Staying away from rumors of past teachings sure. JS once told a campfire story about people living on the back of the moon. I’ve seen many people try to turn that story into a church doctrine it was just a story for fun. It’s been a few years, but I’m sure it will be back. I’ve yet to see the church shy away from its doctrines.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Yes, the view from 2008. You fail to acknowledge your own church’s teachings, that were spoken by your prophets as the word of God, and today they are nothing to you but “rumors”.I’ve not seen any “distancing” from past official teachings. Staying away from rumors of past teachings sure. JS once told a campfire story about people living on the back of the moon. I’ve seen many people try to turn that story into a church doctrine it was just a story for fun. It’s been a few years, but I’m sure it will be back. I’ve yet to see the church shy away from its doctrines.
When does prophecy become rumor?
Where is the continuity of doctrines in your church?
D
dosdog
Guest
Christ came back in 1844? I guess we all missed the RaptureI Do but you forgot
Peter and Christ
T
teancum79
Guest
Its quite plan to see. Prophecy does not become rumor, but many try to make poorly understood statements and sprue fiction into something in an attempt to cause problems.Yes, the view from 2008. You fail to acknowledge your own church’s teachings, that were spoken by your prophets as the word of God, and today they are nothing to you but “rumors”.
When does prophecy become rumor?
Where is the continuity of doctrines in your church?
M
majick275
Guest
yet those of us who were around in the 60’s and 70’s know what was presented in church as doctrine by alleged apostles and prophets and what is taught now. it is a verifiable fact that the D&C used to contain the lectures on faith. it is a verifiable fact that the current version (which no longer contains them) makes reference to this and calls them profitable for teaching. have you read lecture 5? that’s problematic. the original D&C for years had a section of canonized scripture that claimed polygamy was ad and that the LDS did not practice it. it was removed like LoF without a vote. just “went away”. we have from LD sources all the teachings of Brigham young in general conference on polygamy as well as that of some of his better known apostles. had to imagine general conference talks by prophets and apostles being “rumors”. then there are the teachings on race especially by mark e petersen and if you look at the OD on this in your current scriptures you will see no repudiation of those teachings merely that they are now “fulfilled”. eternal progression is still in current manuals. the JoD and even the seer are quoted from in current manuals with the First presidency “imprimatur” and yet we see all of this distanced from constantly. even the temple ceremony keeps changing. rumors aren’t the problem so much as facts.Its quite plan to see. Prophecy does not become rumor, but many try to make poorly understood statements and sprue fiction into something in an attempt to cause problems.
C
c659smith
Guest
Have you ever been in a Mormon Temple?yet those of us who were around in the 60’s and 70’s know what was presented in church as doctrine by alleged apostles and prophets and what is taught now. it is a verifiable fact that the D&C used to contain the lectures on faith. it is a verifiable fact that the current version (which no longer contains them) makes reference to this and calls them profitable for teaching. have you read lecture 5? that’s problematic. the original D&C for years had a section of canonized scripture that claimed polygamy was ad and that the LDS did not practice it. it was removed like LoF without a vote. just “went away”. we have from LD sources all the teachings of Brigham young in general conference on polygamy as well as that of some of his better known apostles. had to imagine general conference talks by prophets and apostles being “rumors”. then there are the teachings on race especially by mark e petersen and if you look at the OD on this in your current scriptures you will see no repudiation of those teachings merely that they are now “fulfilled”. eternal progression is still in current manuals. the JoD and even the seer are quoted from in current manuals with the First presidency “imprimatur” and yet we see all of this distanced from constantly. even the temple ceremony keeps changing. rumors aren’t the problem so much as facts.
T
teancum79
Guest
I have a copy and read it from time to time. I think 2 was my favorite.yet those of us who were around in the 60’s and 70’s know what was presented in church as doctrine by alleged apostles and prophets and what is taught now. it is a verifiable fact that the D&C used to contain the lectures on faith. it is a verifiable fact that the current version (which no longer contains them) makes reference to this and calls them profitable for teaching. have you read lecture 5? that’s problematic. the original D&C for years had a section of canonized scripture that claimed polygamy was ad and that the LDS did not practice it. it was removed like LoF without a vote. just “went away”. we have from LD sources all the teachings of Brigham young in general conference on polygamy as well as that of some of his better known apostles. had to imagine general conference talks by prophets and apostles being “rumors”. then there are the teachings on race especially by mark e petersen and if you look at the OD on this in your current scriptures you will see no repudiation of those teachings merely that they are now “fulfilled”. eternal progression is still in current manuals. the JoD and even the seer are quoted from in current manuals with the First presidency “imprimatur” and yet we see all of this distanced from constantly. even the temple ceremony keeps changing. rumors aren’t the problem so much as facts.
The JOD has problems, they tend to creep in when you don’t have a check to make sure you heard anything right. People’s mis hearing or a slip of the tongue do not doctrine make. That said a lot of what is there is worth having.
There are significant differences between having a bunch of wives beacuse you want a bunch of wives and having more than one wife beacuse God said so. Just as there is a difference between killing every man woman and child in a city on a whim or when God tells you to.
There are some changes to some practices. In the church at least in the US we use lots of little cups for water instead of one big cup when we administer the sacrament. We used to baptize people in the ocean and in lakes and rivers Now whenever possible we use a baptismal fount.
Changes in a practice are not changes in doctrine. In both the examples above the Priesthood power remains the same. The work being done remains the same.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
These things were taught by your church, so if you believe this is a problem, it is a problem that was caused by your church.Its quite plan to see. Prophecy does not become rumor, but many try to make poorly understood statements and sprue fiction into something in an attempt to cause problems.
T
teancum79
Guest
So if I go to a catholic church take a few notes I can claim that the CC taught whatever I wrote down.These things were taught by your church, so if you believe this is a problem, it is a problem that was caused by your church.
Cool I think I’ll have Mary having an affair with Gabriel and the interdiction of to praying to Yoda.
I’m sure I can find several things there that are close enough to that. It should be great fun.
M
majick275
Guest
many times.Have you ever been in a Mormon Temple?
M
majick275
Guest
i would say that DC132 makes polygamy a doctrine rather than a practice. that it is SO contrary to what jesus taught make is impossible to have been commanded by god. the race issue would fall into doctrine as opposed to practice in my opinion so would changing of scriptures and especially the nature of God. that has changed quite alot in mormon doctrine over the years. Gordon hinkley’s distancing from eternal progression was i think very problematic.I have a copy and read it from time to time. I think 2 was my favorite.
The JOD has problems, they tend to creep in when you don’t have a check to make sure you heard anything right. People’s mis hearing or a slip of the tongue do not doctrine make. That said a lot of what is there is worth having.
There are significant differences between having a bunch of wives beacuse you want a bunch of wives and having more than one wife beacuse God said so. Just as there is a difference between killing every man woman and child in a city on a whim or when God tells you to.
There are some changes to some practices. In the church at least in the US we use lots of little cups for water instead of one big cup when we administer the sacrament. We used to baptize people in the ocean and in lakes and rivers Now whenever possible we use a baptismal fount.
Changes in a practice are not changes in doctrine. In both the examples above the Priesthood power remains the same. The work being done remains the same.
M
majick275
Guest
that’s why we have a catechism. everyone can look up the official teaching of the church. we also have canon law and the GIRM, et al to cover practices. while individual abuses are a problem there is no doubt as to what the church teaches and everyone can see for themselves.So if I go to a catholic church take a few notes I can claim that the CC taught whatever I wrote down.
Cool I think I’ll have Mary having an affair with Gabriel and the interdiction of to praying to Yoda.
I’m sure I can find several things there that are close enough to that. It should be great fun.
T
teancum79
Guest
That a person can in this life be married to more than one women and God approve it. Yes that is a doctrine.i would say that DC132 makes polygamy a doctrine rather than a practice. that it is SO contrary to what jesus taught make is impossible to have been commanded by god. the race issue would fall into doctrine as opposed to practice in my opinion so would changing of scriptures and especially the nature of God. that has changed quite alot in mormon doctrine over the years. Gordon hinkley’s distancing from eternal progression was i think very problematic.
There is no doctrinal race issue.
The nature of God has been pretty plan for a long time. The parent child relationship between mankind and God has been taught clearly and often.
T
teancum79
Guest
It not a bad idea, but apparently some people can’t understand (or choose not to) that a simular process could be had in another church .that’s why we have a catechism. everyone can look up the official teaching of the church. we also have canon law and the GIRM, et al to cover practices. while individual abuses are a problem there is no doubt as to what the church teaches and everyone can see for themselves.
M
majick275
Guest
big difference between god tolerating it, allowing it, approving of it and commanding it. jesus teachings emphasize that moses allowed some hard hearted marriage practices but God didn’t intend it to be that way and jesus tells us how marriage ought to be.(polygamy prohibited)That a person can in this life be married to more than one women and God approve it. Yes that is a doctrine.
There is no doctrinal race issue.
The nature of God has been pretty plan for a long time. The parent child relationship between mankind and God has been taught clearly and often.
no doctrinal race issue? please…dark skin a curse? black people had to wait till the other races got the priesthood first because of the curse? why is lineage so important in patriarchal blessings? mormonism is ALL about race.
let’s see…the witnesses to the BoM tell us father, son and holy spirit is one god. BoM tells us one God. the original version even had wording to indicate that jesus was god rather than the son of god. but still mormonism is pretty orthodox trinitarian through the BoM, then LoF number 5 tells us the father is spirit, jesus flesh and the holy spirit isn’t a separate personage but rather. their “shared mind”. then we get KFD where joseph smith tells over 10,000 in general conference that God is an exalted man who was just like us once with all that implies bringing us into the eternal progression phase. BY then went off into Adam-God theory which was later denounced as false doctrine but then claimed to be misheard, etc. and NOT taught by BY but then Hinkley tells us he did teach that but don’t worry about it and oh BTW he doens’t know that eternal progression is taught or emphasized. i think the metaphoric parent child relationship is used in the Bible to teach man. i don’t think anyone other than mormons has had such a literal offspring concept. satan’s first lie seems quite ingrained in this. maybe that’s why mormons praise the fall as a good thing.
M
majick275
Guest
actually a number of churches have equivalents. the mormons are in the minority on this. i attribute it to the rapidly changing doctrine combined withe the two level (milk and meat or church and temple) teaching that requires holding stuff back.It not a bad idea, but apparently some people can’t understand (or choose not to) that a simular process could be had in another church .
T
teancum79
Guest
you know I keep hearing that people know all about LDS beliefs and than I read this stuff and I’m reminded that people have a hard time keeping the simple stuff straight.big difference between god tolerating it, allowing it, approving of it and commanding it. jesus teachings emphasize that moses allowed some hard hearted marriage practices but God didn’t intend it to be that way and jesus tells us how marriage ought to be.(polygamy prohibited)
no doctrinal race issue? please…dark skin a curse? black people had to wait till the other races got the priesthood first because of the curse? why is lineage so important in patriarchal blessings? mormonism is ALL about race.
let’s see…the witnesses to the BoM tell us father, son and holy spirit is one god. BoM tells us one God. the original version even had wording to indicate that jesus was god rather than the son of god. but still mormonism is pretty orthodox trinitarian through the BoM, then LoF number 5 tells us the father is spirit, jesus flesh and the holy spirit isn’t a separate personage but rather. their “shared mind”. then we get KFD where joseph smith tells over 10,000 in general conference that God is an exalted man who was just like us once with all that implies bringing us into the eternal progression phase. BY then went off into Adam-God theory which was later denounced as false doctrine but then claimed to be misheard, etc. and NOT taught by BY but then Hinkley tells us he did teach that but don’t worry about it and oh BTW he doens’t know that eternal progression is taught or emphasized. i think the metaphoric parent child relationship is used in the Bible to teach man. i don’t think anyone other than mormons has had such a literal offspring concept. satan’s first lie seems quite ingrained in this. maybe that’s why mormons praise the fall as a good thing.
I’ve NEVER seen anyone teach the dark skin was a curse. It has at times been an indicator of a persons linage (duh), but dark skin was never a curse. It God’s church he gets to pick who get s the Priesthood and when. Linage is a big deal to us yes, but it is not as big as keeping Gods commandments.
Your view in Christ’s commandments on marriage is that your view.
The Father Son and Holy Ghost are One God just not the same person.
You are confusing details (KFD being a service for a man who died).
The “Adam-God” theory is one of the most abused probable slips of the tongue in history. Adam’s high standing in the premortal realm is well taught, but the nonsense that Adam was God the Father is just that nonsense.
R
Rocky
Guest
I guess I am going to play the devils advocate for a moment. But first let me state that to ignore Mary on Mother’s Day seems completely bizarre. I would have been offended.
Now to my thought…If Eve hadn’t eaten the forbidden fruit…;would there have been a need for Jesus to be born of the Blessed Virgin Mary…to save us from ourselves? We would all be without sin right? Is it possible that Eve had a choice and was less tempted by the serpent than we believe? Could she have known that she had to take and eat of the ‘no-no’ fruit so that we could come to know Jesus?
More often than one could guess, in casual conversations among Catholics the question of what would it be like if **Adam and Eve had never sinned. ** Let’s not forget that Adam had a choice also–like maybe first confronting the serpent instead of leaving Eve to do the talking. My answer has always been that perhaps Jesus would have come, born of Mary, but would not have required to lay His life down to make us His brothers and sisters. I think I read somewhere some theologians have speculated on this. But I really think that this speculation is useless, as what is is that Jesus chose to be born of Mary, who gave an unqualified “Yes” to all God’s requests/requirements, and who still give an unqualified “Yes” to loving and helping her children, the Church.
Does this make Eve a more important Mother than Mary? I don’t think so at all. But I wonder if Eve doesn’t get the short end of the stick sometimes?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.